I don't think it "just made the cut" for Mountain Lion. It has a full native 64bit EFI, which seems to be the cut off point for it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Power Mac G5 or Mac Pro 1,1?
- Thread starter Pandalorian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think it "just made the cut" for Mountain Lion. It has a full native 64bit EFI, which seems to be the cut off point for it.
Do you have an actual need for the expansion of the Power Mac or Mac Pro?
If not, go for a newer Mac mini. Any of the quad-core models (previously the "Server" models, now any model,) will be faster than the Power Mac for certain, and for many uses, faster than the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1.
If not, go for a newer Mac mini. Any of the quad-core models (previously the "Server" models, now any model,) will be faster than the Power Mac for certain, and for many uses, faster than the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1.
Apple has no reason or motivation to drop software support for older models. I SUPPOSE it could garner upgrades, but I think that's more likely on the iOS market than anything. I don't think users using several old Apple products are going to be swayed to upgrade simply based on OS availability, they'll upgrade when their hardware finally can't do the tasks they need! But they can still make a buck on the OS if they make it compatible.
In order to get the best performance, Lion+ dropped legacy EFI support and went to full 64 bit. 64-bit EFI marks a full circle transition into the 64-bit architecture. Apart from just not having enough RAM, disk space, or CPU power to handle it, I can't imagine what other physical limitation might exist now for the current models for the forseeable future (though something will come along in a few years maybe). Unless a necessary instruction set is added to a CPU, or perhaps Apple just drops hardware support for older devices that also cannot be upgraded (like older iMac GPU's, or even dropping support for older SATA controllers built onto the motherboards)
The MacPro3,1 is the third oldest computer to get 10.8. The MacBookPro3,1 (June 2007) and the iMac7,1 (August 2007) are both older than the MacPro3,1's January 2008. With the iMac7,1 being the slowest of the bunch, yet still being able to drive 10.8 well.
Yeah, I concede. That definition is correct then.
I guess further OSX versions could require certain instruction sets used by newer CPUs which could start cutting off certain Macs in the future also.
I guess maybe we should just do it the say Apple wants us to and buy the latest hardware every 3 years!
At the risk of repeating earlier posters, don't get either in my opinion. Neither are particularly powerful, and depending on the revision of the MP, it may even be less powerful in some ways than your Air. Certainly, if you're going for graphics, I'm not sure any G5 dedicated card is substantially more powerful than even the HD4000 (if at all... it might be worse).
If you don't mind me asking, what is your budget? If I were you, I'd wait until the next gen Haswell Mini and just get that. Its CPU should be on par with the current generation Mac Pro (as the current Mac Pros are really two generations old) and HD5000 supposedly will double 4000 performance and be comparable to low/mid-end discreets (key word being supposedly).
If you don't mind me asking, what is your budget? If I were you, I'd wait until the next gen Haswell Mini and just get that. Its CPU should be on par with the current generation Mac Pro (as the current Mac Pros are really two generations old) and HD5000 supposedly will double 4000 performance and be comparable to low/mid-end discreets (key word being supposedly).
This kinda thing is not really what i believe in. I love desktop computing with a full tower workstation. You have a mac pro, you can upgrade the Xeons, you have two of them, and you have about a billion open spaces for dimms, well only 8 but whatever :3
Also, you can put monster graphics cards in there too. Not only can you do this, but you can put multiple. And if you use eyefinity cards, you can run 12 displays. Mac mini, 2 displays.
So lets sum this up:
Mac mini:
Max ram: 16GB
Max GPU: intergrated <-- lol
Max CPU: best i7 mobile quad core
Max Displays: 2, (unless thunderbolt but w.e.)
Max HDD: Various fusion drive options
Expansion slots: Nope ^.^
Little blower cooling, keeping your whole machine nice and warm.
Mac Pro:
to start off, 980w psu.
Max ram: 64GB, processor config dependant
Max CPU: im not so good with xeons. but, 12 Cores of Xeon. 2x 6 core CPUs.
Max GPU: Any GPU really, but supports GTX 680, HD7970 GHz edition, among others. No dual GPU Card support, as crossfire and SLi are not supported under OSX.
Max Displays: again depends on GPUs, but use two eyefinity cards, and you got 12 displays.
Max HDD: 4x 3.5/2.5" solutions of your choosing. Use 4 x 4TB drives and you got 16TB right there.
Cooling, several cooling zones, designed to be dead silent, and it works, whole machine is whisper quiet, keeping everything chilled.
Expansion: ahh, love this one. PCI Express lanes, you can put raid cards, and connect to an external raid solution, USB cards, esata, you name it.
Also, not to mention the extra outputs on a Pro, such as Optical audio in and out, Several firewire ports, many USB ports, and dual gigabit ethernet, the last one there being one of my favourites, having so many dang networks around my house ^.^
So, who wins?
Take a 2006/7 Mini, it will be slow and sluggish for the most part, using a core solo or core duo.
Take a Mac Pro 2006/7 and slap a $70 GPU in that guy, and you've got a screamer right there.
Buy a mini today, it'll last a few years.
Buy a pro today, and as we've seen the 2006 models so, it'll last 7 years. However even longer than that with upgrades but no new OS.
Heck, I'm still using snow leopard and loving it, why is everyone so stressed about OS upgrades? Chill people.
Last edited:
Fair points, except one very, very big thing -- price. The Mac Mini quad will run you 800, 600 for the entry level. The entry Mac Pro will run you 2500 and it only gets steeper from there.
Though older generations of Mac Pros will be cheaper at this point, I don't think it makes much sense to get one of those when Haswell Minis are around the corner and should run circles around those older Pros in terms of CPU and be acceptable to good in terms of GPU (not to mention the power consumption, if that's an issue for the OP).
Here's my take on what to buy: always buy the cheapest thing that meets your actual requirements. If it's not powerful enough, then obviously it won't work for you so don't cheap out below your needs, but if you overshoot your needs, you're overpaying for power that you don't use. The higher end something is, the quicker it will depreciate on an overall per dollar basis. Thus, a Mac Pro will last you 7 or so years as you suggested with upgrades... but for that price, I could easily buy 3-4 Mac Minis in that span, and end up with far more powerful computers (perhaps not GPU, but that will further raise the Pro expenditures) at about 2ish upgrades in (or realistically, upgrade less frequently and save the money). I think the biggest sticking point is the GPU, but that only applies if dGPU is a requirement for your needs.
Per my philosophy, if the Mini meets your needs, you're better off with that, and should only get the Pro if you necessarily need its power now in terms of CPU and GPU (upgradeability). Of course, if you need the Pro, then throw out my whole cost proposition, because the Mini is not sufficient for your needs in the first place and is thus not an option. Buy the minimum that suits your needs, never go below your needs, and never go above.
get the mac pro, you can expand it so it can run the latest version of os x, and use modern apps and not have to dig through the interwebs looking for the old version of the app. trust me intel all the way
Consider GPU performance, still? My G5 tower still outperforms a current MBA 13", maxed out, with the Intel HD 4000 GPU, as far as raw GPU power goes.
I guess it depends what you're buying it for..
In what way, though? For games? Many/most games now require Intel processors, so it doesn't matter. Also depends on which graphics card you have. If you have the fastest-available-for-PowerPC graphics card, yeah. But if you have even the stock graphics card that came with the highest-end G5 (GeForce 6600 in the G5 quad,) the mini will be faster for nearly everything. Intel graphics may be slow compared to current discrete graphics, but they're not "as slow as an 8-year-old GPU" slow.
And on the CPU side, the Core i5 dual-core in the low-end Mini scores nearly as high as two Xeon 5160 CPUs (the highest-end chip in the first-generation Mac Pro.)
Multiple benchmarks shows the current mini faster than the first Mac Pro, and nearly every Intel Mac faster than the fastest Power Mac G5,
Geekbench is just one example.
The FireGL Pro that your G5 has does not outperform an Intell HD 4000. In many benchmarks it falls short by about 10-40%.
You're mistaken. See my above posts. Aftermarket cards for Mac Pros can still be more powerful, since you can virtually run the latest and greatest (but those cards alone cost more than the OP is probably looking for), but at this point, unless your budget is too low for a new Mini or you want a G5, there is no reason to get one with performance as a rationale. In fact, I feel the same way about the early Mac Pros as well, as power consumption becomes an actual issue.
I just picked up and fixed a quad 2.5. It's certainly speedy enough for every day use, but my Air is faster in just about every way. It's a nice machine for sure, but it's pushing 7 years now...
Wow.
I was in the same boat when I bought my MacBook in 2006. I was planning to use it just in emergencies when I was away from my Windows XP Desktop.
After about a month or so I would not go near the desktop unless I had some serious stuff to do I couldn't do on the MacBook.
Do you really need the extra graphics performance? If you do, could you sell the MBA and get a pretty decent MBP along with an external monitor? For the past 7 years I've been satisfied with the 13" screen, but I will admit, it'd be nice to have a nice 23" one to use when needed.
I think this way you won't get stuck with an old/outdated Mac and you'll still retain portability.
I was in the same boat when I bought my MacBook in 2006. I was planning to use it just in emergencies when I was away from my Windows XP Desktop.
After about a month or so I would not go near the desktop unless I had some serious stuff to do I couldn't do on the MacBook.
Do you really need the extra graphics performance? If you do, could you sell the MBA and get a pretty decent MBP along with an external monitor? For the past 7 years I've been satisfied with the 13" screen, but I will admit, it'd be nice to have a nice 23" one to use when needed.
I think this way you won't get stuck with an old/outdated Mac and you'll still retain portability.
See my earlier post, my G5 GPU benchmark on Openmark outperforms my MBP ATI HD score....BUT my MBP runs games more smoothly (eg. games that run on both platforms like Doom3, Quake4 and Amnesia) as GPU is not the be all and end all, Openmark stresses ONLY the GPU, this is not real world helpful, games and other GPU heavy applications need a good CPU as well - I think therefore the MBP's CPU more than makes up for the Openmark defecit in GPU.
Totally true, my CPU is maxed out by UT2004, which only can use a single CPU, whereas the GPU is barely stressed. So for gaming, yeah overall I'd still say a current Core i5+ Mac with an Intel HD 4000 GPU and at least 4GB memory would be preferable, especially with the whole "booting Windows" gig attached.
Still, I like to e-pen*s brag about my GPU
Don't get either. Use your MacBook air with an external HDD and display.
If you have to pick between the PM G5 and Mac Pro, choose the mac pro. You don't even understand how annoying basic tasks become with the G5. I have a dual core 2.3 with 14 GB of RAM and it struggles on most online tasks that require updated plugins. Youtube will struggle, and so will facebook. Safari is garbage and you can't run Chrome.
Apps like iTunes, Mail, Microsoft Office, and the other iLife/iWork applications work wonderfully.
If you have to pick between the PM G5 and Mac Pro, choose the mac pro. You don't even understand how annoying basic tasks become with the G5. I have a dual core 2.3 with 14 GB of RAM and it struggles on most online tasks that require updated plugins. Youtube will struggle, and so will facebook. Safari is garbage and you can't run Chrome.
Apps like iTunes, Mail, Microsoft Office, and the other iLife/iWork applications work wonderfully.
As far as PPC Macs go, if you use Facebook through a Fluid .app, it's immensely faster,.
You would be better off getting a nice cheap LCD, and an external hard drive for more storage. The graphics in the Air are already better than you would find in a G5 or a Mac Pro 1,1 anyways.
Thanks everyone, for the responses. I'm still unsure of what exactly my requirements are, in numbers and specs. I have games that are VERY graphically intensive (I've never come across a mac that can handle Civ 5 without major lag), and i want to be able to encode videos for youtube fairly easily. My air is definitely struggling with the gaming side, esp. with only an integrated graphics processor. HD4000 is an amazing improvement over the 9400M from NVIDIA in the last macbook i had, but still is not quite powerful enough for the stuff i need to do on my main mac.
...Unless you know that you're buying into a dying architecture.
...Unless you know every single piece of software you will use throughout the time you have it.
...Unless you know that you can pay half the price for a quad G5 & build yourself a nice little gaming rig.
...Unless you want to have a machine that has real character & will put a smile on your face everytime you turn it on & hear those beastly fans roaring at you.